Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Investigation Of Ziyarat `ashura

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

Çááåã Õá Úáì ÓíÏäÇ ãÍãÏ æÚáì Âá ÓíÏäÇ ãÍãÏ

æÇáÚä ÃÚÏÇÁåã ÃÌãÚíä

There have been many doubts raised about the authenticity of Ziyarat `Ashura just because it has a weak isnad. Although this is unimportant in regards to mustahabb a`maal and the like of rewarding acts, I will examine the chains individually and then together (jam`).

The first 2 tareeqs are from Ja`far b. Muhammad b. Qooluwayh’s ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåãÇ famous work Kaamil al-Ziyaaraat:

1 - ÍÏóøËäí Íßíã Èä ÏÇæÏ Èä Íßí㺠æÛíÑå ¡ Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ãæÓì ÇáåóãÏÇäíöø ¡ Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØøíÇáÓíöø ¡ Úä ÓíÝ Èä ÚóãöíÑÉ º æÕÇáöÍ Èä ÚõÞúÈÉ ÌãíÚÇð ¡ Úä ÚóáÞãÉó Èäö ãÍãøÏ ÇáÍóÖÑãíø

1 – Hukaym b. Dawud b. Hukaym and other than him narrated to me from Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamdani from Muhammad b. Khalid al-Tayaalasi from Sayf b. `Ameera & Salih b. `Uqbah together from `Alqama b. Muhammad al-Hadrami

I say: This chain is weak. Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamadani has been weakened by the Qummis due to ghuluw and Ibn al-Walid ÑÖí Çááå Úäå used to say that he is something that fabricated narrations. Salih b. `Uqbah has been called a ghali and a liar by Ibn al-Ghada’iri ÑÖí Çááå Úäå – if one rejects this book then he is majhul. `Alqama al-Hadrami, of the famous Dua `Alqama, is also majhul.Muhammad b. Khalid is majhul; although we can argue for his taqwiy due to external qara’in – it does not strengthen this chain due to the other weak narrator(s).

2 – æ(ßÐÇ) ãÍãøÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ¡ Úä ÕÇáöÍ Èä ÚõÞúÈÉ ¡ Úä ãÇáß ÇáÌõåäí

2 – And (like that) Muhammad b. Isma`il from Salih b. `Uqbah from Malik b. Juhni

I say: This chain is mursal and weak. The connection from Ibn Qooluwayh ÑÍãå Çááå to Muhammad b. Isma`il is unknown and Malik b. Juhni is a majhul `aammi. Salih has already been discussed.

So, both chains (more like one and a half chains) from Kaamil al-Ziyaaraat are weak. However, there are 3 more turuq to another transmission of this ziyarah by al-Shaykh al-Tusi ÑÖí Çááå Úäå in al-Misbah:

1 – ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÕÇáÍ Èä ÚÞÈÉ Úä ÇÈíå Úä ÚáÞãÉ

1 – Muhammad b. Isma`il from Salih b. `Uqbah from his father from `Alqama

2 – ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÕÇáÍ Èä ÚÞÈÉ æÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÚáÞãÉ

2 – Muhammad b. Isma`il from Salih b. `Uqbah and Sayf b. `Ameera from `Alqama

I say: This chain is weak for the same reasons (with the same reasons) as shown earlier, albeit the Tusi’s tareeq to Muhammad b. Isma`il is sahih.

3 – ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØíÇáÓí Úä ÓíÝ íä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÕÝæÇä

3 – Muhammad b. Khalid al-Tayaalasi from Sayf b. `Ameera from Safwan

I say: This chain is qawwi, rather qawwi kal-hasan, due to Muhammad b. Khalid who is without tawtheeq but with some external evidences pointing to tahseen and narrating sahih narrations. The tareeq of Tusi ÑÍãå Çááå to al-Tayaalasi is mu`tabar unless you completely reject Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-`Attar ÑÖí Çááå ÚäåãÇ as majhul. However, al-Saduq ÑÖí Çááå Úäå has narrated from him excessively and given him repeated taraddi and tarahhum.

So, there are no chains of Ziyarat `Ashura that are reliable in themselves (mu`tabar li-dthatih). However, if you see the complete transmission of this Ziyarah, you will see its sihha. Please open up the PDF provided in this post and you will see a sahih tareeq from al-Tusi to Abi `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã:

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáØæÓí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÈÇÓäÇÏå Çáì ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÓíÝ íä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÕÝæÇä Úä ÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Tusi, May Allah be pleased with him, by his chain to Muhammad b. Isma`il from Sayf b. `Ameera from Safwan from Abi `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

I say: This tareeq is sahih, the chain is musnad and all rijal are thiqat.

Therefore, Ziyarat `Ashura is reliable by corroboration (mu`tabar li-ghayrih) - ãÚÊÈÑ áÛíÑå

However, this shows us that the most reliable copy of this ziyarah is as it is found in al-Misbah, rather than Kaamil, which is without the 100x repeated la`n and tasleem. Perhaps this was lost in transmission or was interpolation by Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamdani; Allah knows best.

*I do not mean to say to not recite the 100x pieces, I am only saying that that part of the ziyarah is less proven than the rest. However, it's matn is mu`tabar without doubt.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Note: Green in the PDF indicates a reliable narrator, blue an unknown narrator, and red indicates a weak narrator. The blue arrow shows connection while the red arrow is (likely) irsal

ÔÌÑÉ ØÑÞ ÒíÇÑÉ ÚÇÔæÑÇÁ.pdf

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam Dar,

This is really good work. As we discussed in private, note that al-Tusi writes how a thiqa narrated a lot of usul from Muhammad b. Khalid al-Tayalisi:

ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØíÇáÓí ¡ íßäì ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå ¡ Ñæì Úäå ÍãíÏ ÃÕæáÇ ßËíÑÉ

This is significant given that no one has weakened him. Sayyid Shubayri-Zanjani (the top hadith/rijal scholar alive today) also says that he is acceptable given that not only no one has weakened him, but a lot of thiqa narrators have narrated a lot from him, like Muawiyah b. Hakeem etc., so it does at least establish a basic level of reliability.

Obviously my own personal view on this would be that the ijma of the mutaqadimeen on its acceptance speaks volumes (I have seen none of them rejecting it), more so than any sanad can ever do. So the sanad business is only a bonus in my view.

Edited by Hannibal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

Have you read Shaykh Ja'far Subhani's bahth on the asnaad, you might find that some of the reasons of weakening or strenghthening to be useful in his bahth:

One example the weakening of Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamadani the fact that the Qummis/Ibn Waleed have their own specific beliefs regarding the Ahlul Bayt, he quotes Shaykh Mufeed from his tasheeh al-I'tiqaad quoting what is attributed to Ibn Waleed saying that the first step in ghuluw is denying sahw of the Prophet and Imams.... then shaykh Mufeed goes on about taqseer on the matter.

And so on with the other narrators....

http://www.alseraj.n...ge_index_02.htm

Edited by MAFHJ
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam Dar,

This is really good work. As we discussed in private, note that al-Tusi writes how a thiqa narrated a lot of usul from Muhammad b. Khalid al-Tayalisi:

ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØíÇáÓí ¡ íßäì ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏ Çááå ¡ Ñæì Úäå ÍãíÏ ÃÕæáÇ ßËíÑÉ

This would have been a considerable point only if the other narrators from which Humayd took usul were thiqah. Here are some other narrators from whom Humayd took a lot of usul:

ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÒíÏ = majhool

ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáãÉ = majhool

ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ÇáÞÑÔí = waqifi daeef

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÍÇÒã = majhool

So, this actually proves the opposite.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

This would have been a considerable point only if the other narrators from which Humayd took usul were thiqah. Here are some other narrators from whom Humayd took a lot of usul:

ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÒíÏ = majhool

ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ãÓáãÉ = majhool

ÇáÞÇÓã Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ÇáÞÑÔí = waqifi daeef

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÍÇÒã = majhool

So, this actually proves the opposite.

w/s

Akhi, please take my whole paragraph into consideration and don't cherry pick my sentences (you might - unintentionally - misrepresent my point). Anyways, the argument didn't hinge on Humayd only ... see the second sentence on Shubayri-Zanjani's point as well.

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Salaam,

Have you read Shaykh Ja'far Subhani's bahth on the asnaad, you might find that some of the reasons of weakening or strenghthening to be useful in his bahth:

One example the weakening of Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamadani the fact that the Qummis/Ibn Waleed have their own specific beliefs regarding the Ahlul Bayt, he quotes Shaykh Mufeed from his tasheeh al-I'tiqaad quoting what is attributed to Ibn Waleed saying that the first step in ghuluw is denying sahw of the Prophet and Imams.... then shaykh Mufeed goes on about taqseer on the matter.

And so on with the other narrators....

http://www.alseraj.n...ge_index_02.htm

Thanks for your reply.

I think to be suspicious of the accusations of ghuluw by the Qummis would just call into question almost anything they said about a narrator - were they really weak or reliable if they wrong about his beliefs? Keep in mind that they were much closer to the time of the Imams [as] and knew what was correct practice and doctrine due to the external evidences in addition to the large amount of narrations they had (more than we do). I also find it a weak argument that because they had a "low" threshold for what ghuluw is that it calls into question everything, that's also assuming they were just absolutely wrong in their belief about Sahw al-Nabi [sawa] - which is very debatable. I mean, why are we assuming that we have more correct beliefs than they did? al-Mufid [ra] may have disagreed with al-Saduq [ra] about this one point, but that doesn't mean he believed or would believe the other things narrated by people the Qummis marked as ghulaat.

Also, in this particular case, Ibn al-Walid [ra] isn't pointing at the al-Hamdani would fabricate hadith.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Thanks for your reply.

I think to be suspicious of the accusations of ghuluw by the Qummis would just call into question almost anything they said about a narrator - were they really weak or reliable if they wrong about his beliefs? Keep in mind that they were much closer to the time of the Imams [as] and knew what was correct practice and doctrine due to the external evidences in addition to the large amount of narrations they had (more than we do). I also find it a weak argument that because they had a "low" threshold for what ghuluw is that it calls into question everything, that's also assuming they were just absolutely wrong in their belief about Sahw al-Nabi [sawa] - which is very debatable. I mean, why are we assuming that we have more correct beliefs than they did? al-Mufid [ra] may have disagreed with al-Saduq [ra] about this one point, but that doesn't mean he believed or would believe the other things narrated by people the Qummis marked as ghulaat.

Also, in this particular case, Ibn al-Walid [ra] isn't pointing at the al-Hamdani would fabricate hadith.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

maybe their understanding of ghulu is different than ours?

Sayed Ali Shehristani in his book"ash'hadu anna alayan wali Allah" said: (sorry for not providing a translation)

æÈÚÏ åÐÇ áäÇ ÇáÂä Ãä äÊÓÇÁá : áæ ßÇä åÐÇ åæ æÖÚ ÈÛÏÇÏ æÞã ÚÞÇÆÏíÇ ¡ ÝßíÝ íãßä Ãä ääÓÈ ÇáÛáæø æÇáÊÝæ íÖ Åáì ÇáÈÛÏÇÏííä¿! ãÚ ãÇ ÚÑÝäÇ Úäåã ãä Ãäøåã ÇÞÑÈ Åáì ÇáÚÇãøÉ ãßÇäÇ æÝßÑÇ ¡ æÐáß áãÎÇáØÊåã áÃÝßÇÑ ÇáãÚÊÒáÉ æÇáãÑÌÆÉ æÛíÑåÇ ãä ÇáÃÝßÇÑ ÇáÓÇÆÏÉ ÂäÐÇß Ýí ÈÛÏÇÏ.

æÝí ÇáãÞÇÈá ßíÝ íãßääÇ ÊÕæøÑ ÇáÊÞÕíÑ Ýí Ãåá Þãø¿! ãÚ æÞæÝäÇ Úáì ßËÑÉ ÇáãÑæíø ãä ÞöÈóáöåöãú Ýí ãÞÇãÇÊ ÇáÃÆãøÉ ¡ æÇåÊãÇãåã ÇáãÝÑØ ÈÇáÃÎÐ Úä ÇáËÞÇÊ. æÇáÊÚÑíÝõ ÈßÊÇÈ « ÈÕÇÆÑ ÇáÏÑÌÇÊ » áãÍãøÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä Èä ÝÑæÎ ÇáÕÝÇÑ ÇáÞãøí ( Ê ٢٩٠ å‍ ) ãä ÃÕÍÇÈ ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÚÓßÑí ¡ ßÇÝò áÅÚØÇÁ ÕæÑÉ Úä ÇáãäÒáÉ ÇáãÚÑÝíøÉ áÃåá Þãø ¡ ÅÐ ÞÏ íÊÕæÑ Ãä ÝßÑÉ ÇáÛáæø æÇáÊÝæíÖ åí ÃÞÑÈ Åáì ÇáÞãííä ãä ÇáÈÛÏÇÏííä ¡ æÐáß áæÖæÍ ÇáÇÑÊÝÇÚ Ýí ãÑæ íÇÊåã Úä ÇáÃÆãøÉ ¡ Ýí Ííä Ãäø ÇáÃãÑ íäÚßÓ ÝíãÇ íÞÇá Úä ÇáÈÛÏÇÏííä Ü Ãæ Þá Úä ÛíÑ ÇáÞãííä Ü Ãäøåã ÛáÇÉ!!

ÝÞÏ ÐßÑ ÇáÕÝÇÑ Ýí ßÊÇÈå ÃÍÇÏíË ßËíÑÉ ÝíãÇ ÃÎÐ Çááøå‏ ãä ãæÇËíÞó áÃÆãøÉ Âá ãÍãÏ ¡ æÃä ÑÓæá Çááøå‏ æÇáÃÆãøÉ íÚÑÝæä ãÇ ÑÃæÇ Ýí ÇáãíËÇÞ ¡ æÃäø Çááøå‏ ÎáÞ ØíäÉ ÔíÚÉ Âá ãÍãÏ ãä ØíäÊåã .

æÞÏ Ñæì ßÐáß ١٦ ÍÏíËÇ Ýí Ãäøåã íÚÑÝæä ÑÌÇá ÔíÚÊåã æÓÈÈ ãÇ íÕíÈåã ¡ æ ١٢ ÍÏíËÇ Ýí Ãäøåã íÍíæä ÇáãæÊì æíÈÑÄæä ÇáÃßãå æÇáÃÈÑÕ ÈÅÐäå ÊÚÇáì ¡ æ ١٩ ÍÏíËÇ Ýí Ãäø ÇáÃÆãøÉ íÒæÑæä ÇáãæÊì æÃäø ÇáãæÊì íÒæÑæäåã ¡ æ ١٤ ÍÏíËÇ Ýí Ãäøåã íÚÑÝæä ãÊì íãæÊæä æíÚáãæä Ðáß ÞÈá Ãä íÃÊíåã ÇáãæÊ.

æÝí Úáã ÇáÅãÇã ÈãäØÞ ÇáØíÑ æÇáÍíæÇäÇÊ ÐßÑ ÇáÕÝÇÑ ٤٣ ÍÏíËÇ Ýí ËáÇËÉ

ÃÈæÇÈ ¡ ßÇä áÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÈÑÞí ١٦ ÍÏíËÇ ãäåÇ.

æÃäø ÇáÃÚãÇá ÊÚÑÖ Úáì ÑÓæá Çááøå‏ 6 æÇáÃÆãÉ : ÇÍíÇÁð ßÇäæÇ Ãã ÇãæÇÊÇ ¡ Åáì ÛíÑåÇ ãä ÇáÇÎÈÇÑ ÇáÏÇáÉ Úáì ÇáãßÇäÇÊ ÇáÚÇáíÉ ááÃÆãøÉ.

Åäø ÑæÇíÉ åßÐÇ ÃÍÇÏíË ãÚÑÝíøÉ Ýí ÇáÚÊÑÉ ÇáãÚÕæãÉ Úä ÑæÇÉ ãä Ãåá Þãø íÄßÏ Èà äøåã ßÇäæÇ ãÓÊÚÏøíä áÞÈæá ãÞÇãÇÊ ÇáÃÆãøÉ æäÞáåÇ æÑæÇíÊåÇ ¡ æÃäø ãÇ ÑæÇå ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÈÑÞí Úä ãÔÇíÎå áíÄßøÏ Úáì ÊÞÈøá ÇáÞãííä áãËá åßÐÇ ÃÎÈÇÑ ¡ æÃäøåÇ áíÓÊ ÈÛáæø Ýí ÇÚÊÞÇÏåã ¡ æåæ ÇáÂÎÑ íæÖøÍ ÈÃäø ÅÎÑÇÌ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ÇáÃÔÚÑí áÃÍãÏó Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáÈÑÞí áã íßä áãÇ ØÑÍå ãä ÚÞÇÆÏ Ýí ßÊÇÈå Èá áÃãæÑ ÃÎÑì ¡ ßÇáÞÖÇíÇ ÇáÓíÇÓíÉ ÇáãØÑæÍÉ ÂäÐÇß ¡ æáÙÑæÝ ÇáÊÞíÉ ÇáÞÇåÑÉ ÇáÊí ßÇäÊ ÊÍíØ Èå Ü æÇáÊí ÓäæÖÍ ÈÚÖ ãÚÇáãåÇ áÇÍÞÇ Ü æáßæäå åæ ÇáæÍíÏ Ýí ãÔÇíÎ Þãø ÇáÐí ßÇä áå ÇÑÊÈÇØ ãÚ ÇáÓáØÇä æÇä ÇÈä ÚíÓì ÈÇÑÊÈÇØå ÈÇáÍÇßã ßÇä íÑíÏ ÊÞÏíã ÎÏãÉ ÔÑÚíÉ ÌáíáÉ áãÏíäÉ Þã ¡ æÞÏ ÍÞÞåÇ ÈÇáÝÚá.

æÇáãØÇáÚ ÈãÞÇÑäÉ ÈÓíØÉ Èíä ßÊÇÈ « ÈÕÇÆÑ ÇáÏÑÌÇÊ » ááÕÝÇÑ « æÇáãÍÇÓä » ááÈÑÞí íÞÝ Ýí ßÊÇÈ ÇáÈÕÇÆÑ Úáì ÑæÇíÇÊ ÃÔÏø ããøÇ Ýí ÇáãÍÇÓä ¡ ÝáãÇÐÇ íõØöÑÏõ ÃÍãÏõ Èä ãÍãÏ Èä ÚíÓì ÇáÃÔÚÑíøõ ¡ ÃÍãÏ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÈÑÞíøó æáÇ íØÑÏ ÇáÕÝÇÑó ÇáøÐí Ñæì Úä ÇáÈÑÞí¿ áÇ íãßä ÇáÌæÇÈ Úä Ðáß ÅáÇø ÈãÇ ÞáäÇå ÇáÂä æÈãÇ ÓäæÖÍå áÇÍÞÇ.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

maybe their understanding of ghulu is different than ours?

Sayed Ali Shehristani in his book"ash'hadu anna alayan wali Allah" said: (sorry for not providing a translation)

I don't think understanding of ghuluw was different, they were just stricter about it. If it was different, that's something to really think about in terms of what is and isn't ghuluw compared the mashhoor ideas now and then - when they were very close to the time period of the Imam [as].

Also, if one rejects the book Basa'ir al-Darajat, what Shehrastani is quoting a lot from, (which has a big question mark on it - Ibn al-Walid [ra] refused to narrate it, it is clear he thought it was full of ghuluw) it doesn't help much. You don't really find anyone referring to that book in the early era as well.

Also, Saduq [ra] was very sure that things were fabrications, his words show no hesitancy and he didn't bother recording things cause they were lies (as he does with the Mufawwida narrating the third shahada in the adthan). This religion and its books stands on the 3 Muhammads [ra].

Anyway, back to the topic at hand and enough about questioning what is/isn't ghuluw - enough threads about that already.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

Thanks for your reply.

I think to be suspicious of the accusations of ghuluw by the Qummis would just call into question almost anything they said about a narrator - were they really weak or reliable if they wrong about his beliefs? Keep in mind that they were much closer to the time of the Imams [as] and knew what was correct practice and doctrine due to the external evidences in addition to the large amount of narrations they had (more than we do). I also find it a weak argument that because they had a "low" threshold for what ghuluw is that it calls into question everything, that's also assuming they were just absolutely wrong in their belief about Sahw al-Nabi [sawa] - which is very debatable. I mean, why are we assuming that we have more correct beliefs than they did? al-Mufid [ra] may have disagreed with al-Saduq [ra] about this one point, but that doesn't mean he believed or would believe the other things narrated by people the Qummis marked as ghulaat.

Also, in this particular case, Ibn al-Walid [ra] isn't pointing at the al-Hamdani would fabricate hadith.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Salaam,

Well their defintion of ghuluw could lead to the following 2 points:

1- Since Muhammad b. Musa al-Hamadani views on the status of Ahlul Bayt are different than the Qummis/Ibn Walid it is possible from this he would be considered a ghaali according to them.

2- Since his views differ than those of Ibn Walid, he may be considered a fabricator for those narrations in which they differ on the status of the Ahlul Bayt on (possible).

Also seeing that al-Mufeed does criticize some views and refer to them as taqseer, it seems that it is something to take into consideration when they weaken or refer to sommeone as ghaali in this case. Shaykh al-Mufeed being an old timer aw well.

Anyways that's just what I understood from that part, just referencing what was said to widen the scope.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Akhi, please take my whole paragraph into consideration and don't cherry pick my sentences (you might - unintentionally - misrepresent my point). Anyways, the argument didn't hinge on Humayd only ... see the second sentence on Shubayri-Zanjani's point as well.

Akhi, I didn't comment on the second sentence as its even more weaker usul. Muawiyah b. Hakeem did narrated from other majhool narrators. Syed al-Khoei has discussed this in very much detail and considered ahadith of those majaheel as daeef from whom even Muhammad b. Abi Umayr (ra) narrated.

w/s

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Akhi, I didn't comment on the second sentence as its even more weaker usul. Muawiyah b. Hakeem did narrated from other majhool narrators. Syed al-Khoei has discussed this in very much detail and considered ahadith of those majaheel as daeef from whom even Muhammad b. Abi Umayr (ra) narrated.

w/s

Please read the paragraph carefully before commenting. If you have issues understanding, please let me know so I can highlight parts for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Chatroom Moderators

There have been many doubts raised about the authenticity of Ziyarat `Ashura just because it has a weak isnad[...]I will examine the chains individually and then together (jam`)[...]

So, there are no chains of Ziyarat `Ashura that are reliable in themselves (mu`tabar li-dthatih). However, if you see the complete transmission of this Ziyarah, you will see its sihha. Please open up the PDF provided in this post and you will see a sahih tareeq from al-Tusi to Abi `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã:

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáØæÓí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÈÇÓäÇÏå Çáì ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÓíÝ íä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÕÝæÇä Úä ÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Tusi, May Allah be pleased with him, by his chain to Muhammad b. Isma`il from Sayf b. `Ameera from Safwan from Abi `Abdillah Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

I say: This tareeq is sahih, the chain is musnad and all rijal are thiqat.

Therefore, Ziyarat `Ashura is reliable by corroboration (mu`tabar li-ghayrih) - ãÚÊÈÑ áÛíÑå

This requires some assumptions.

In Tusi's third chain,

ÞÇá æÑæì ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØíÇáÓí Úä ÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ ÞÇá ÎÑÌÊ ãÚ ÕÝæÇä Èä ãåÑÇä ÇáÌãÇá æÚäÏäÇ ÌãÇÚÉ ãä ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ ÈÚÏ ãÇ ÎÑÌ ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

the tareeq, in reverse, from the Imam to Sayf is saheeh.

In the second chain,

ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÈÒíÚ Úä ÕÇáÍ Èä ÚÞÈÉ æÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÚáÞãÉ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÍÖÑãí Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã .

the tareeq, in reverse, from Sayf to Muhammed bin Isma`il is saheeh to Tusi is saheeh (let's assume that Muhammed to Tusi is saheeh though there are some doubts)

If we now assume that the hadith, i.e. the ziyarah, that Sayf recieved from Safwan bin Yahya is the same as what he narrated to Muhammed bin Isma`il, then yes it is saheeh. This is however a major assumption, and unlikely, because if it had been the same, then Saif would have clearly said to Muhammed bin Isma`il that he recieved it from Safwan and not from Alqama.

(wasalam)

Edited by Cake
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

If we now assume that the hadith, i.e. the ziyarah, that Sayf recieved from Safwan bin Yahya is the same as what he narrated to Muhammed bin Isma`il, then yes it is saheeh. This is however a major assumption, and unlikely, because if it had been the same, then Saif would have clearly said to Muhammed bin Isma`il that he recieved it from Safwan and not from Alqama.

(wasalam)

(wasalam)

Narrators do not always name all the narrators they got a particular hadith form at that time - like in the first chain there is no mention of Sayf b. `Ameera and in the chain of Tusi from al-Tayaalasi he doesn't mention getting it from Saalih - which is mentioned in Ibn Qooluwayh's chain. Also, this may have come from separate books which is why it would have not have every single person there named. As for content being the same, Tusi's chains (all of them) are to the same ziyarah without differences, the differences were between Tusi's and Ibn Qooluwayh's.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Chatroom Moderators

Narrators do not always name all the narrators they got a particular hadith form at that time - like in the first chain there is no mention of Sayf b. `Ameera and in the chain of Tusi from al-Tayaalasi he doesn't mention getting it from Saalih - which is mentioned in Ibn Qooluwayh's chain. Also, this may have come from separate books which is why it would have not have every single person there named.

Yes, on a minority of occasions, a narrator will not name all of his shaykhs for a hadeeth. For example, see the first hadeeth in al-Kafi. However, it remains an assumption for you as you do not know that Sayf heard the exact same hadeeth from two different individuals but then decided to report it on two occasions, each time naming a different source. An unlikely occurrence especially when you only have two shaykhs for a hadeeth. As I said "if it had been the same, then Saif would have clearly said to Muhammed bin Isma`il that he recieved it from Safwan and not from Alqama".

As for content being the same, Tusi's chains (all of them) are to the same ziyarah without differences

We do not have any saheeh turuq to any version of the hadeeth so it is an assumption that the content is the same. For all we know, one of the dhu`ufa' or majaheel altered the hadeeth to match an earlier version, or just stole it and gave it a chain.

(wasalam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Yes, on a minority of occasions, a narrator will not name all of his shaykhs for a hadeeth. For example, see the first hadeeth in al-Kafi. However, it remains an assumption for you as you do not know that Sayf heard the exact same hadeeth from two different individuals but then decided to report it on two occasions, each time naming a different source. An unlikely occurrence especially when you only have two shaykhs for a hadeeth. As I said "if it had been the same, then Saif would have clearly said to Muhammed bin Isma`il that he recieved it from Safwan and not from Alqama".

We do not have any saheeh turuq to any version of the hadeeth so it is an assumption that the content is the same. For all we know, one of the dhu`ufa' or majaheel altered the hadeeth to match an earlier version, or just stole it and gave it a chain.

(wasalam)

(wasalam)

Again, it is not an impossible occurrence and could be a result of different books (meaning the book where Sayf got it from Safwan was passed in one direction and the one from `Alqamah in another direction). And I am not claiming this hadith is saheeh on its own, it is not. I am saying that it is mu`tabar li-ghayrih, which is a separate category of authenticity (which is not really found among the Imamia, I have borrowed this idea from the Sunnis). There are no sahih turuq, that was the point of this exercise of putting the turuq together and seeing what the result is. It is to show that the likeliness of fabrication is low (even from just a rijal perspective) - even lower if you put together the external evidences. The fact that Muhammad b. Isma`il heard from Safwan as well strengthens the claims of al-Tayaalasi hearing it from Sayf from Safwan.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ÈÓã Çááå ÇáÑÍãä ÇáÑÍíã

I say: This chain is weak for the same reasons (with the same reasons) as shown earlier, albeit the Tusi’s tareeq to Muhammad b. Isma`il is sahih.

Shaykh al-Radhy said:

... ÃÏÚí Ãä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáØæÓí äÞáåÇ ãä ßÊÇÈ ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÈÒíÚ æåÐÇ æÅä ßÇä áÇ ÔÇåÏ Úáíå

Regardless of other weaknesses in the isnad of this ziyarah, how can we be sure that Shaykh Tusi narrated this from the book of Muhammad b. Ismail and not from the book of some other narrator?

There is a narration in al-Misbah from Abdullah b. Sinan (ra) and al-Khoei graded it as mursal(daeef). The tareeq (in fihrist) of Shaykh Tusi to the book(s) of Abdullah b. Sinan is sahih and yet al-Khoei graded it as mursal(daeef). His argument is that the tareeq mentioned in al-Fihrist is limited to the books of Ibn Sinan and doesn't includes all his "narrations" and therefore it is possible that Shaykh Tusi narrated this riwayah of Ibn Sinan from the book of some other narrator (ÛíÑ ßÊÇÈ ÚÈÏÇááå Èä ÓäÇä). Therefore, to grade that hadith of Abdullah b. Sinan as sahih we need a sahih tareeq of Shaykh Tusi to Abdullah b. Sinan with something like:

... ÇÎÈÑäÇ ÈÌãíÚ ßÊÈå æÑæÇíÇÊå

And since we dont have this^ kind of tareeq for Ibn Sinan, therefore, he graded his ahadith as mursal / daeef. (ref: http://www.al-khoei....dex.php?id=3258 pg. 318)

How is the above case different from the sanad of this Ziyarah in al-Misbah (Shaykh Tusi >> Muhammad b. Ismail) ? Do we have sahih tareeq of Shaykh Tusi to Muhammad b. Ismail (ra) for "ÌãíÚ ßÊÈå æÑæÇíÇÊå" ?

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

This is a fair point, Jondab. al-Tusi ÑÖí Çááå Úäå only has a tareeq to Muhammad b. Ismai`il ÑÍãå Çááå's Kitab al-Hajj, and this is not about hajj. I will investigate further.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Some scholars have argued that usually its Kitab al-Hajj which has the abwaab and riwayaat of Ziyaraat like Shaykh al-Kulayni in al-Kafi, Shaykh Hurr al-Amuli in al-Wasael, but again this would be a big assumption in case of Muhammad b. Ismail, because there is a possibility that Shaykh Tusi got it from a book of some other narrator(ÛíÑ ßÊÇÈ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá).

w/s

Edited by Jondab_Azdi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Some scholars have argued that usually its Kitab al-Hajj which has the abwaab and riwayaat of Ziyaraat like Shaykh al-Kulayni in al-Kafi, Shaykh Hurr al-Amuli in al-Wasael, but again this would be a big assumption in case of Muhammad b. Ismail, because there is a possibility that Shaykh Tusi got it from a book of some other narrator(ÛíÑ ßÊÇÈ ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá).

w/s

(wasalam)

That would would make sense. I think it only makes sense that he'd be narrating it from his tareeq to that book. There's really no other indicator that he got it from some other book and the other is just doubt for the sake of it.

Besides, Tusi (ra) does this a lot when he narrates from someone when we already know his turuq to somewhere, like he does for Fadhl b. Shaadthan (ra) in Kitab al-Ghayba and he does this with other narrators in Tahdheeb where you just skips to the later person without mentioning "bi-hadh-al-isnad" or its like. And hi turuq to Muhammad b. Isma`il is known from his other books. I think this is a reasonable assumption.

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáØæÓí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÈÇÓäÇÏå Çáì ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÓíÝ íä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÕÝæÇä Úä ÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

This is a creation of a new chain which is non existent, especially when this is not a case of Mutabiah, rather Shawahid, and Ilm ad-Dirayah would not favour such a method.

I agree with the concept of potentially two [or more] Dhi'f Khafif Riwayah [i.e. Dhaif due to a Mastur/Majhul narrator in the chains] [as opposed to Dhi'f Mutashadid due to presence of Kadhab or fabricator in the chains] strengthening each other [as Shawahid to each other] to reach a level of Hasan li Ghayrihi and so Mu'tabar li Ghayrihi.

When we apply this to the two Isnads from at-Tusi which you pointed out, it is a candidate for such a procedure.

ÞÇá æÑæì ãÍãÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØíÇáÓí Úä ÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ ÞÇá ÎÑÌÊ ãÚ ÕÝæÇä Èä ãåÑÇä ÇáÌãÇá æÚäÏäÇ ÌãÇÚÉ ãä ÃÕÍÇÈäÇ ÈÚÏ ãÇ ÎÑÌ ÃÈæ ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

This is Dhaif due only due to Jahalat al-Hal of at-Tayalisi [after accepting Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Yahya al-Attar in at-Tusi's Tariq due to other Mabani]

ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÈÒíÚ Úä ÕÇáÍ Èä ÚÞÈÉ æÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÚáÞãÉ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÍÖÑãí Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

This is Dhaif only due to Jahalat al-Hal of Alqama since Salih is Maqrun with Sayf [after assuming that at-Tusi is narrating directly from Kitab al-Hajj of Ibn Bazi to which he has a Sahih Tariq]

So it can be argued that these two Dhi'f Khafif Isnad's of at-Tusi in al-Misbah strengthen each other as Shawahid, and thereby its common Matn becomes Hasan li Ghayrihi in this way, and can have Hujiyyah based on Sanad analysis.

But there is also the point that al-Radhy raises which is that at-Tusi could be narrating/quoting from Muhammad b. Ismail using Kamil az-Ziyarat as his source with the difference of the primary narrator from al-Baqir, so it could be suffering the same problems faced by the second Isnad of Ibn Qulawayh there [i.e. al-Hamdaniy], he says :

ßãÇ íÈÏæ Ãä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáØæÓí äÞá åÐå ÇáÒíÇÑÉ æÓäÏåÇ Úä ÇÈä Þæáæíå ÇáãÊÞÏã ÐßÑå ãä ßÇãá ÇáÒíÇÑÇÊ æÈÎÕæÕ ÇáÓäÏ ÇáËÇäí ÇáãÊÞÏã æÃä ÇÎÊáÝ Ýí ÇáÑæÇí Úä ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

Which if be it the case then there is no strengthening whatsoever.

NOTE: al-Radhy believes that Muhammad b. Ismail in al-Kamil's second Isnad is Ma'tuf at at-Tayalisi's point in the first Isnad and not Hukaym.

If we now assume that the hadith, i.e. the ziyarah, that Sayf recieved from Safwan bin Yahya is the same as what he narrated to Muhammed bin Isma`il, then yes it is saheeh

Safwan b. Mihran brother not Ibn Yahya, I saw this same Ishtibah in Akhi Dar's pdf, it should be corrected.

I think we should argue for two different Ahadith [with similar Matn's] strengthening each other [as Shawahid] and not a case of the same Hadith [as Mutabiah], and this is why even the Imams in both paths are different - Abu Ja'far and Abu Abdallah, and the events surrouding it are different.

Of course some accept the principle of Tasamuh in such matters.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

ãÍãÏ Èä ÇáÍÓä ÇáØæÓí ÑÖí Çááå Úäå ÈÇÓäÇÏå Çáì ãÍãÏ Èä ÇÓãÇÚíá Úä ÓíÝ íä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÕÝæÇä Úä ÇÈí ÚÈÏÇááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

This is a creation of a new chain which is non existent, especially when this is not a case of Mutabiah, rather Shawahid, and Ilm ad-Dirayah would not favour such a method.

The point wasn't this "new chain" but rather the strengthening created by the complete gathering of the asaneed and their gathering would show some sort of strong trace back to a ma`sum for something of a similar matn.

But there is also the point that al-Radhy raises which is that at-Tusi could be narrating/quoting from Muhammad b. Ismail using Kamil az-Ziyarat as his source with the difference of the primary narrator from al-Baqir, so it could be suffering the same problems faced by the second Isnad of Ibn Qulawayh there [i.e. al-Hamdaniy], he says :

ßãÇ íÈÏæ Ãä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáØæÓí äÞá åÐå ÇáÒíÇÑÉ æÓäÏåÇ Úä ÇÈä Þæáæíå ÇáãÊÞÏã ÐßÑå ãä ßÇãá ÇáÒíÇÑÇÊ æÈÎÕæÕ ÇáÓäÏ ÇáËÇäí ÇáãÊÞÏã æÃä ÇÎÊáÝ Ýí ÇáÑæÇí Úä ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

Which if be it the case then there is no strengthening whatsoever.

I don't see how he's making this conclusion. Ibn Qooluwayh [ra]'s isnad from Muhammad b. Ism`ail [ra] only goes through Salih and then through an `aammi. Tusi [ra]'s is going through both Sayf and Salih then to `Alqamah. So how is he just narrating the chain from Kaamil?

NOTE: al-Radhy believes that Muhammad b. Ismail in al-Kamil's second Isnad is Ma'tuf at at-Tayalisi's point in the first Isnad and not Hukaym.

Can you please explain what this means brother?

Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

æÇááå ÃÚáã

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

The point wasn't this "new chain" but rather the strengthening created by the complete gathering of the asaneed and their gathering would show some sort of strong trace back to a ma`sum for something of a similar matn.

Yes, what can be argued for is that the strengthening is due to two different Isnads, both of which are Dhaif when looked at individually, but since the Dhi'f in both the Isnads is not Shadid, they are allowed to be combined and to strengthen each other, thereby the common Matn rises to a level of Hasan li Ghayrihi, thereby having Hujiyyah and I'tibar from the Rijal point of view.

But the Hadith does not have a single Sahih Isnad due to such combination.

I don't see how he's making this conclusion. Ibn Qooluwayh [ra]'s isnad from Muhammad b. Ism`ail [ra] only goes through Salih and then through an `aammi. Tusi [ra]'s is going through both Sayf and Salih then to `Alqamah. So how is he just narrating the chain from Kaamil?

Remember at-Tusi's first Sanad: ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÈóÒöíÚ Úä ÕÇáÍ Èä ÚõÞúÈóÉ Úä ÃÈíå Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

the only difference between this and Kamil's second Isnad is the primary narrator to al-Baqir [who is Uqbah here]

and also at-Tusi's second Sanad:

ãÍãÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá Èä ÈÒíÚ Úä ÕÇáÍ Èä ÚÞÈÉ æÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ Úä ÚáÞãÉ Èä ãÍãÏ ÇáÍÖÑãí Úä ÃÈí ÌÚÝÑ ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

again the only difference is that Salih is Maqrun with Sayf, and the primary narrator is now Alqama,

so al-Radhy says that he might be narrating from Kamil - æÃä ÇÎÊáÝ Ýí ÇáÑæÇí Úä ÇáÅãÇã ÇáÈÇÞÑ Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã - 'with the difference being only in the primary narrator from al-Baqir'.

I agree that he has to have evidence for this, which he has not provided.

Can you please explain what this means brother?

It means that in Kamil's two Isnads

ÍÏóøËäí Íßíã Èä ÏÇæÏ Èä Íßí㺠æÛíÑå ¡ Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ãæÓì ÇáåóãÏÇäíöø ¡ Úä ãÍãøÏ Èä ÎÇáÏ ÇáØøíÇáÓíöø ¡ Úä ÓíÝ Èä ÚóãöíÑÉ º æÕÇáöÍ Èä ÚõÞúÈÉ ÌãíÚÇð ¡ Úä ÚóáÞãÉó Èäö ãÍãøÏ ÇáÍóÖ

and

æ(ßÐÇ) ãÍãøÏ Èä ÅÓãÇÚíá ¡ Úä ÕÇáöÍ Èä ÚõÞúÈÉ ¡ Úä ãÇáß ÇáÌõåäí

al-Radhy considers Muhammad b. Ismail in the second Isnad taking the place of at-Tayalisi in the first Isnad, so the full second Isnad to him is

Hukaym > al-Hamdaniy > Muhammad b. Ismail > Salih > Malik al-Juhaniy

and not that Ibn Qulawayh has a different chain to Muhammad b. Ismail as some have mentioned.

He mentions scholars who agree with him on this.

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...